You are on page 1of 9

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF____ __JUDICIAL REGION Branch__

SPOUSES RAUL and ANNA GERONIMO, Plaintiffs

-versusNullity

CIVIL CASE NO: For: Declaration of of Sale etc.

PETER PASCUAL Defendant X==================================/

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFFS ==========================


Plaintiffs, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully state and submit their memorandum in the aboveentitled case:

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff, Anna Geronimo, is married to Raul Geronimo. They got married in 2006. Before their marriage, plaintiffs husband bought a one-bedroom condominium unit. He purchased the condominium unit in 2001.

2 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs

Since they got

married in 2006, the plaintiff and her husband

(hereafter to be referred to as the Spouses Geronimo) have been living in this condominium unit.

In 2008, when Ms. Geronimo learned that she was having a baby, they considered selling their condominium unit to make room for the nanny and all the baby stuff that they may need.

In 2009, Ms. Geronimo mentioned of this plan to herein defendant, Peter Pascual (Mr. Pascual hereafter), who was a close friend of theirs in one of their weekend dinners. Ms. Geronimo offered to sell the unit to Mr. Pascual at P2 million. decide to sell it. Mr. Pascual was interested in purchasing the condominium unit should the spouses

In the meantime, sometime in May 2009, Ms. Geronimo left for the United States. However, at the time she left for the United States, no deed of sale was executed between her and her husband and the defendant Mr. Pascual. While she was there in the U.S., she decided not to sell the condominum unit anymore realizing that it would be better to keep it in the meantime as an investment. She then called her husband to inform him of his decision he already had the managers check in his possession. but her husband told her that he already signed the deed of sale and that

In September 2009, Ms. Geronimo returned from the United States and immediately called the defendant Mr. Pascual to inform him of her decision not to sell anymore the unit and offered to return the purchase price which her husband received from him (defendant). But Mr. Pascual insisted that the sale had already been

3 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs

consummated and refused to accept the return of the purchase price.

ISSUES
The following are the relevant issues in this case: a. Does the condominium unit form part of the conjugal properties of the spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo? b. May Raul Geronimo validly sell the condominium unit to the defendant, Mr. Pascual, without the consent of plaintiff Anna Geronimo who is his (Raul) wife? c. Was the sale consummated between plaintiff and her husband and the herein defendant Mr. Pascual?

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS
The condominium unit form part of the community properties of the Spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo 1. The condominium unit form part of the community properties of the spouses Raul and Anna Geronimo.

2. While it may true that Raul acquired the unit in 2001 while he was still single, it is now jointly owned by the plaintiff spouses because Article 91 of the Family Code provides that the community property shall consist of all property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Thus:

4 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs

Art. 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter. (197a) (underscoring supplied)

3. While initially owned by the plaintiffs husband, Raul, considering that he acquired the same in 2001 while he was then single, it form part of the community property of the spouses because, as defined, community property shall consist of all property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage. In thus bringing the condominium unit to the marriage, it now forms part of the absolute community property of the spouses.

Plaintiffs husband-Raul Geronimo- could not validly sell the condominium unit without first securing the consent of plaintiff. 4. There is no valid sale in this instance because Raul Geronimo sold the unit-an absolute community propertywithout first securing the consent of plaintiff Ana Geronimo.

5. Artile 96 of the Family Code is very explicit in stating that the administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses exclusively.

Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

5 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. (206a) (underscoring supplied)

6. If a spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the community properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration.

7. However, this assumption of the sole power to administer do not include spouse. disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other

8. In

the absence of such authority

or consent, the

disposition or encumbrance such as the sale of the condominium unit in this case shall be void.

9. The law, therefore, could not be any clearer. The transaction in this case-which is a sale transaction-and being entered solely by the husband without the plaintiffs consent is void.

6 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs

10.

In Jader-Manalo vs. Camaisa G.R. No. 147978 January

23, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that the law requires that the disposition of a conjugal property by the husband as administrator in appropriate cases require the written consent of the wife, otherwise, the disposition is void.

11.

Even if plaintiff Ms. Geronimo initially was the one who

broached the idea of selling the property to Mr. Pascual, such conduct could and should not be construed as consent to the sale transaction. At this point, there was no perfected contract of sale to speak of.

12.

The Supreme Court in Jader-Manalo had occasion to

state that even if the wife actively participated in negotiating the sale of the subject properties therein, her written consent to the sale is required by law for its validity.

The properties subject of the contracts in this case were conjugal; hence, for the contracts to sell to be effective, the consent of both husband and wife must concur. Respondent Norma Camaisa admittedly did not give her written consent to the sale. Even granting that respondent Norma actively participated in negotiating for the sale of the subject properties, which she denied, her written consent to the sale is required by law for its validity. Significantly, petitioner herself admits that Norma refused to sign the contracts to sell. Respondent Norma may have been aware of the negotiations for the sale of their conjugal properties. However, being merely aware of a transaction is not consent (underscoring supplied)

7 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs

13.

Mere knowledge of the transaction is not the consent Thus, even if

required by law to validate the sale.

defendant Mr. Pascual would strenuously contend that plaintiff Anna Geronimo actually knew of the sale (and in fact, was even the one who negotiated the sale), still that is not consent that the law requires to make the transaction valid.

The sale between plaintiff and husband and the defendant was not perfected 14. The sale between plaintiff and husband and the

defendant was not perfected.

15.

There is no contract when there is no consent of the

contracting parties.

16.

Article 1319 provides that consent is manifested by the

meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute.

17.

In this case, defendant Mr. Pascuals acceptance of

plaintiff spouses offer was not definite. When told that plaintiffs spouses were now selling their condo unit and offered the price of P2 million, defendant Pascual MERELY told them (plaintiff) that he would call back once the deed of sale and managers check were ready. There was, in effect, no definite and absolute acceptance (of the offer) BEFORE plaintiff left for the United States.

8 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs

Q: When did the actual negotiations for the sale of the condo unit start? A: In April 2009, I called Mr. Pascual and informed him that we finally found a house. I told him that we were now selling our condo unit. Since he was still interested in buying it, I offered it to him for P2 million. He said that he will call back once the deed of sale and managers check were ready.

18.

At the time that defendant Pascual called back to relay

his acceptance of the offer, plaintiff Anna Geronimo was no longer around.

19.

When she (Anna Geronimo) knew of the supposed

acceptance (of the offer), she had by then already withdrew the offer. Knowledge by the husband alone of defendants acceptance of the offer would not suffice, as there was no consent from plaintiff anymore when the acceptance of the offer was made by defendant Pascual.

20.

As was held in Malbaroa vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.

125761, April 30, 2003:

The acceptance of an offer must be made known to the offeror. Unless the offeror knows of the acceptance, there is no meeting of the minds of the parties, no real concurrence of offer and acceptance. The offeror may withdraw its offer and revoke the same before acceptance thereof by the offeree. The contract is perfected only from the time an acceptance of an offer is made known to the offeror. (underscoring supplied)

RELIEFS

9 | Page Memorandum for the Plaintiffs

WHEREFORE,

foregoing

premises

considered,

plaintiff

respectfully prays that the sale be declared void. Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.